This site is supported by Nobility Studios.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Community moderation

12 posts in this topic

Posted

Excellent news. Does this mean the default threshold for viewing all posts is no longer set at the user's discretion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

You can still filter topics at your discretion (I need to add more options to the drop-down to make it worthwhile, though). This adds an extra layer, in effect bumping the default threshold up a bit before you opt for the filter (and even if you do).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Seems like a good idea to me. Especially as the forum grows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Clearly there is a danger that this system could be abused.

Abuse is not the problem. The problem is that the system is unexplained. You get some number of + clicks and/or some number of - clicks and you have no clue about what prompted those clicks. The clickor got some nebulous impression, maybe from a misunderstanding, maybe an unfamiliar word, maybe from something that was not even in that message, maybe he got spastic for a moment, and all you know is you have this meaningless click, and you are going to act as if that is important somehow. I have seen this before in a new forum and within a week the sysadmin was trying to learn programming so he could disable it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I don't know. I think in a certain sense, the nebulous/ambiguous vote is better, simply because you want to avoid meta-conversations. Or, maybe in theory there's a way to separate the meta-conversation from the conversation. But, the problem with the meta-conversation is that it usually results because someone's feelings are hurt. I mean, we're trying to separate the substance of what is said from it's emotional affect, and there's no way to do that. All conversation is an emotional minefield, and it takes experience to figure out where the mines are, and how to avoid them.

What's the best way to say to someone, in-thread, "Your post is moving the conversation in the wrong direction?" Critiquing their post? That never works, because that post itself moves the conversation in the wrong direction. Maybe if you separate the meta-discussion from the discussion somehow, that could work, but it is equally plausible that the meta-discussion, itself, will leak back into the main conversation. That's why I think the nebulous/ambiguous vote works better, as it suspends the meta-discussion completely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I don't know. I think in a certain sense, the nebulous/ambiguous vote is better, simply because you want to avoid meta-conversations. Or, maybe in theory there's a way to separate the meta-conversation from the conversation. But, the problem with the meta-conversation is that it usually results because someone's feelings are hurt. I mean, we're trying to separate the substance of what is said from it's emotional affect, and there's no way to do that. All conversation is an emotional minefield, and it takes experience to figure out where the mines are, and how to avoid them.

What's the best way to say to someone, in-thread, "Your post is moving the conversation in the wrong direction?" Critiquing their post? That never works, because that post itself moves the conversation in the wrong direction. Maybe if you separate the meta-discussion from the discussion somehow, that could work, but it is equally plausible that the meta-discussion, itself, will leak back into the main conversation. That's why I think the nebulous/ambiguous vote works better, as it suspends the meta-discussion completely.

I understand: you wish members would be better educated. So do I. It is a real thrill to discuss something with an educated person who disagrees and can explain why in plain English. It is frustrating to discuss something with a fellow who feels something but can't say what it is. And it's downright disheartening to encounter someone who has bad manners besides. Since public education has been gutted, and national heroes have all been replaced by national slobs, you and I seem to be the only educated people left, and I'm starting to wonder about you.

It's religious: the whole nation has been possessed by a spirit of stupid.

Edited by Jewels Vern

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

you and I seem to be the only educated people left, and I'm starting to wonder about you.

It's religious: the whole nation has been possessed by a spirit of stupid.

We seem to share a similar sense of humour... B)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I don't know. I think in a certain sense, the nebulous/ambiguous vote is better, simply because you want to avoid meta-conversations. Or, maybe in theory there's a way to separate the meta-conversation from the conversation. But, the problem with the meta-conversation is that it usually results because someone's feelings are hurt. I mean, we're trying to separate the substance of what is said from it's emotional affect, and there's no way to do that. All conversation is an emotional minefield, and it takes experience to figure out where the mines are, and how to avoid them.

What's the best way to say to someone, in-thread, "Your post is moving the conversation in the wrong direction?" Critiquing their post? That never works, because that post itself moves the conversation in the wrong direction. Maybe if you separate the meta-discussion from the discussion somehow, that could work, but it is equally plausible that the meta-discussion, itself, will leak back into the main conversation. That's why I think the nebulous/ambiguous vote works better, as it suspends the meta-discussion completely.

Here's an example.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

you and I seem to be the only educated people left, and I'm starting to wonder about you.

It's religious: the whole nation has been possessed by a spirit of stupid.

We seem to share a similar sense of humour... B)

PoL, I assumed he was joking. Surely he doesn't seriously think that he's the only educated person on here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

you and I seem to be the only educated people left, and I'm starting to wonder about you.

It's religious: the whole nation has been possessed by a spirit of stupid.

We seem to share a similar sense of humour... B)

Well here we have an inline example: the original message is not displayed because it got three negative marks, which are otherwise meaningless, but there is one positive remark which more than offsets the three anonymous negs. You see, I have to ignore anonymous negs because nobody can assess whether they were valid or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

you and I seem to be the only educated people left, and I'm starting to wonder about you.

It's religious: the whole nation has been possessed by a spirit of stupid.

We seem to share a similar sense of humour... B)

Well here we have an inline example: the original message is not displayed because it got three negative marks, which are otherwise meaningless, but there is one positive remark which more than offsets the three anonymous negs. You see, I have to ignore anonymous negs because nobody can assess whether they were valid or not.

Not quite accurate. It's the pos rep that's meaningless, therefore it offsets nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0